additional thoughts

As an addendum to the last couple of posts, i have a few wrap-up thoughts....

To begin, i forgot to mention a point yesterday, which seemed quite significant to me when i first read it -- the question of homeostasis and plateaus.

The problem of plateauing when one has been losing weight is a PERENNIAL problem.  It happens with every diet, but is at its most monstrous under the eat-less-exercise-more paradigm, as i discovered in my CICO past.  You slow down or completely stop losing weight because your body has reduced metabolism to match intake -- countless studies as well as n=1 experiences have convinced even the CICOpaths.  So what do THEY say to do?  Eat even less and exercise even more -- hell on earth!  When this happens in low-carb weight-loss regimens, gurus usually say to cut carbs to bare minimum (sometimes zero), reduce protein to what i consider dangerously-low levels, and eat more fat.  Intermittent-fasting enthusiasts say, narrow your eating-window or extend your fasting periods, depending on what kind of pattern you prefer to use.

Now, for quite awhile i've noticed that "shaking things up" helps when weight-loss stalls.  I will go for a day (or just a single meal) of upping one of the macronutrients, then after the pig-out, fast 24 hours and resume "normality."  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but it frequently gives an energy- or a mood-boost.  If the feast happened to have been carb-heavy, carb apologists would take that as evidence that i should be eating more of them but that's not a reasonable conclusion -- as a matter of fact, continuation of the pattern with ANY macronutrient would be a mistake, and i think this is where ALL the gurus are mistaken.

Eating huge amounts of fat ALL THE TIME doesn't give our bodies the opportunity to tap body-fat for fuel.  Eating lots of carbs all the time is even worse if one doesn't spend one's non-working hours exercising.  Eating very large portions of protein tends to be self-limiting.

Fung's conclusions parallel my own -- that establishing a low baseline of insulin and sugar, but varying the postprandial peak size is a good thing.  Our bodies never "get comfortable" at a particular intake or outgo, so the homeostatic plateau is less likely, and the occasional pig-out is shown clinically to not be counterproductive.  I need to give a try to a different pattern of IF, one which has never sounded very appealing to me -- the 5-normal-2-lowcal regimen.  Thanks, Doc, seems like sound advice!
 
****

Then we come to a subject on which i'm not in particular agreement....  Dr. Fung states that one cannot ease stress "by doing nothing," when it comes to hacking sleep and cortisol.  I spoke about stress not too long ago, and this is a subject on which i have more nebulous opinions.  Fung's recommendations on stress-relief are the usual -- exercise, social connectivity, meditation, religion, massage, sleep....

I suspect that some people's stress CAN be significantly relieved by "doing nothing" ... especially when they ordinarily do way too much.  Yeah, that's probably not what he meant, but i am averse to telling people not to do nothing -- double-negative used on purpose, here!

It seems to me that our stress-relievers are going to be as individual as our stress-creators.  Perhaps i'll give special attention to the subject during our vacation WHICH STARTS SUNDAY!!!  :-D  We're both elated by the prospect of some care-free weeks, and visiting a part of the world we've never seen before.  We think we have our asses covered when it comes to home-worries, and since MY stress comes from my husband's worries, that's a big load off my shoulders.